Meanwhile, Apple's efforts to ban Android devices has run into a few roadblocks; for example Apple's litigation against Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility has been dismissed with prejudice not once,not twice, but three times from different federal courts.

In the wake of that lone victory, Apple is looking to triple the damages to $3B USD and to ban more Google products. Hoping that lightning will strike twice, Apple filed in court this week request Judge Koh to tack on Google's latest Jelly Bean operating system, and Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1.

While Apple's products don't have a stylus, the company still claims that the Samsung stylus-endowed designs infringe on its patents.

The Galaxy Note 10.1 is a particularly thorny pain in Apple's side. It features a friendly pen-input technology that Apple's iPad lacks. Samsung has gained quite a bit of ground on Apple in the tablet industry; Apple is eager to stomp out that potential rival before things get to far.

And by asking to ban Jelly Bean devices, Apple can hope to not only kill shipments of older Samsung smartphones to the U.S., but also to kill Samsung's full lineup of phones.

II. Judge Koh Strikes Down One Key Ban

It's unclear, though, whether Judge Koh will humor Apple.

Judge Koh, despite allowing the record jury verdict, recently struck down the ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 (the precursor to the Note 10.1), as the jury found it did not infringe on U.S. Design Patent D504,889, a design patent which depicted a bulkier button-less early iteration of the iPad, nicknamed by some the "fat iPad".

While Judge Koh did acknowledge that the Tab 10.1 was found to infringe on Apple user interface patents, she argued that was insufficient to ban the handsets.

That's bad news for Apple, as while the jury found Samsung's product line to be almost entirely in infringement of Apple's UI patents, they only found some handsets to be close enough to Apple's smartphone patents to be ruled in infringement. In other words if Judge Koh applies the same standard to smartphones, only a couple of older Samsung handsets, like the first-generation Galaxy S, might be banned.

Apple is making its plea to expand the case before Judge Paul S. Grewal, who will decide whether to send the new products for consideration by Judge Koh and the jury. Samsung is understandably upset about the additions, which it argues will add 17 stylus-based products to the existing case. (While Apple's products do not use a stylus, it argues its patents cover the absent feature as well.)

It argues it only wants to add a single product, albeit a big one -- the iPhone 5. Victoria Maroulis, an attorney for Samsung, writes in a counter-brief to Apple's request, "By adding the stylus, Apple is going to enlarge the case significantly."

On an interesting note Judge Koh agreed to hear arguments from Samsung that look to toss the $1B USD jury verdict on grounds of juror misconduct. The claims don't deal with the share-holding family members; that interest was clearly disclosed and ruled okay by Judge Koh.

However, one of the jurors did not reveal, when directly questioned if they had ever been involved with a lawsuit, an important case win which they were the defendant. Specifically, the juror had been sued by a hard-drive manufacturer that now controls Samsung's old hard drive business -- Seagate.

The jury foreman in the record verdict against Samsung "accidentally" forgot to mention he had been sued in the 1990s by a Samsung subsidiary. [Image Source: Walt Disney]

Basically, the juror had signed a note promising to pay Seagate, but did not, leading to a breach of contract suit. In other words, that juror, Velvin Hogan -- who also happened to play the pivotal role of jury foreman -- seemingly would have a huge bone to pick with Samsung.

In light of that undisclosed bias, Samsung's attorney's are pleading with Judge Koh to toss the verdict and grant a retrial with a new foreman who doesn't conceal potential legal grudges against their firm.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm not sure what relevance Google Play or the Apple app store have to my post.

iOS is a closed operating system, indeed. Again, not sure what that has to do with my post. I wasn't referring to iOS, but their ecosystem at large. It's essentially equivalent to the ecosystem gaming consoles have. Which there is also a rather sizable market for.

Great, premium products, we both know about some basic marketing and trade, that's wonderful.

In terms of litigation, I'd invite you to show me where Samsung and Motorola started their particular patent war with Apple. As far as I can tell, patent trolling has been going on for decades. Apple just happens to be one of (but not the only) main protagonist in the contemporary era. But what they've done of late, tends to buck the trend slightly from my knowledge. Whilst most companies in the past couple of decades used it to extort licencing fees, Apple are instead using the patent system in an anti-competitive way to attempt to maintain a monopoly.

And please explain to me, how the hell do you read benchmarks to better understand whether a project is open or not? Of the hundreds of open source projects I've worked with or worked on, I have no idea what benchmarks have to do with their openness. Either you are talking gibberish, or you were drunk when replying. I would hope for your sake it's the latter.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates